SHUD ENGLAND RESTORE GUN FREEDOM ?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

From the London Times
On Line
September 8, 2007

Wouldn't you feel safer with a gun?
British attitudes are supercilious and misguided
Richard Munday

Despite the recent spate of shootings on our streets,
we pride ourselves on our severe gun laws. Every time an American gunman
goes on a killing spree, we shake our heads in righteous disbelief at our poor
benighted colonial cousins. Why is it, even after the Virginia Tech massacre,
that Americans still resist calls for more gun controls?

The short answer is that "gun controls" do not work:
they are indeed generally perverse in their effects.

Virginia Tech, where 32 students were shot in April, had a severe gun ban
policy and only last year successfully resisted a legal challenge that would
have allowed the carrying of licensed defensive weapons on campus.

It is with a measure of bitter irony that we recall Thomas Jefferson,
founder of the University of Virginia, recording the words of Cesare Beccaria:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . .
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants;
they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,
for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

One might contrast the Virginia Tech massacre with the assault on
Virginia's Appalachian Law School in 2002, where three lives were lost
before a student fetched a pistol from his car and apprehended the gunman.

Virginia Tech reinforced the lesson that gun controls are obeyed only by
the law-abiding. New York has "banned" pistols since 1911, and its fellow murder capitals,
Washington DC and Chicago, have similar bans. One can draw a map of
the US, showing the inverse relationship of the severity of its gun laws,
and levels of violence: all the way down to Vermont, with no gun laws at all,
and the lowest level of armed violence (one thirteenth that of Britain).

America's disenchantment with "gun control" is based on experience:
whereas in the 1960s and 1970s armed crime rose in the face of more
restrictive gun laws (in much of the US, it was illegal to possess a firearm
away from the home or workplace), over the past 20 years all violent
crime has dropped dramatically, in lockstep with the spread of laws
allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens.

Florida set this trend in 1987, and within five years the states that had
followed its example showed an 8 per cent reduction in murders,
7 per cent reduction in aggravated assaults, and 5 per cent reduction in rapes.

Today 40 states have such laws, and by 2004 the US Bureau of Justice
reported that "firearms-related crime has plummeted".

In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched.
Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey
(published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer
three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States;
never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade,
since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.

We are so self-congratulatory about our officially disarmed society,
and so dismissive of colonial rednecks, that we have forgotten that within
living memory British citizens could buy any gun - rifle, pistol, or machinegun -
without any licence. When Dr Watson walked the streets of London with a revolver
in his pocket, he was a perfectly ordinary Victorian or Edwardian.
Charlotte Brontë recalled that her curate father fastened his watch and pocketed his pistol
every morning when he got dressed; Beatrix Potter remarked on a Yorkshire
country hotel where only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver;
in 1909, policemen in Tottenham borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by
(and were joined by other armed citizens) when they set off in pursuit of
two anarchists unwise enough to attempt an armed robbery.
We now are shocked that so many ordinary people should have been
carrying guns in the street; the Edwardians were shocked rather by the
idea of an armed robbery.

If armed crime in London in the years before the First World War
amounted to less than 2 per cent of that we suffer today,
it was not simply because society then was more stable.
Edwardian Britain was rocked by a series of massive strikes in which lives
were lost and troops deployed, and suffragette incendiaries, anarchist
bombers, Fenians, and the spectre of a revolutionary general strike made
Britain then arguably a much more turbulent place than it is today.
In that unstable society the impact of the widespread carrying of arms
was not inflammatory, it was deterrent of violence.

As late as 1951, self-defence was the justification of three quarters of all
applications for pistol licences. And in the years 1946-51 armed robbery,
the most significant measure of gun crime, ran at less than two dozen
incidents a year in London; today, in our disarmed society,
we suffer as many every week.

Gun controls disarm only the law-abiding, and leave predators with a freer hand.
Nearly two and a half million people now fall victim to crimes of violence in Britain every year,
more than four every minute: crimes that may devastate lives.
It is perhaps a privilege of those who have never had to confront violence
to disparage the power to resist. [ emphasis added by David ]

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,153 • Replies: 72

No top replies

Can you think of a situation where there was one gun present, which would have been improved by there being a second gun present?

Please in answering, discount the instances where a deranged person is determined to slaughter allcomers, because these events are exceedingly rare in Britain.

Britain's gun laws are intended to prevent guns getting into the wrong hands. And to some extent, they do. As proof of that, compare the gun-crime statistics per capita in both countries.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Quote:
Can you think of a situation where there was one gun present,
which would have been improved by there being a second gun present?

Yes, of course.

Any robbery wherein the victim does not defend himself
by counterattacking his robber, leaves it in the discretion
of that robber whether the victim will or will not survive the crime.
His life may depend on the victim 's instant access to vital emergency equipment.

This also applies to victims of attempted murder
who choose to extend their lives BEYOND the length of time
selected for them by by the attempted murderer.

The same defensive principle applies to the felonies of kidnapping
and of burglary.

By the victim 's counterattack,
he endeavors to control the situation, as well as possible.

Bear in mind that a felon has a vested interest
in his victim 's NOT complaining against him to the police,
nor
testifying against him in court.
Those felons know that " Dead men tell no tales. "

Quote:

Please in answering, discount the instances where a deranged person is
determined to slaughter allcomers, because these events are exceedingly rare in Britain.

Britain's gun laws are intended to prevent guns getting into the wrong hands. And to some extent, they do.

Does this mean that the robbers and the murderers of England
have elected to obey English anti-gun laws ??

Quote:
As proof of that, compare the gun-crime statistics per capita in both countries.

Did u read the Times article ??

It asserts that:

" In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched.
Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey
(published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer
three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States;
never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade,
since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones. "

David

0 Replies

Quote:

Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey
(published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer
three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States;
never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade,
since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.

But we still have less gun crime per capita than the USA. Much less. And we have stricter gun control laws. What's your explanation?

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Quote:
Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey
(published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer
three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States;
never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade,
since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.

But we still have less gun crime per capita than the USA.
Much less. And we have stricter gun control laws. What's your explanation?

One explanation is your police cooking the books
to make gun prohibition falsely appear to be not as bad as it really IS,
according to a retired English police officer of senior rank, of the police in London, as I recall.

He came to America and explained how he had been ordered,
sub rosa, to covertly change the system of counting crimes,
for statistical purposes; for instance, when mulitple felonies
were committed upon multiple victims at the same time and place,
they were counted as ONE crime.

0 Replies

There is no death penalty in Britain.

But NRA people in America think it is okay to discharge a firearm if you think your rights or person or property are being threatened.

If this were to occur here, then the "victim" would be putting himself in the position of judge, jury, and possibly executioner.

This is plainly a nonsense under our law. And, I would submit, also under yours.

0 Replies

David,

The tired excuse of cooking the books can't happen anymore, because everything is electronically recorded. Certainly back a couple of decades when there were paper systems of recording, that was a possibility, but unless that police officer was also a computer genious with the right access, I doubt it's recent (besides, if one officer in England cooked the books, 10 in the US probably did the same - population ratio)

You've made the claim many times, and I'd be interested in seeing the link to it, or a book reference, or a newspaper reference.

As for the article, it's cleverly worded, but unless you see the side by side stats it can be quite misleading (which I would say is the intention of the article - to mislead). For example, the part where the author complains of gun crime doubling - perhaps it did (it didn't reference any stats), but does it still come anywhere near America's gun crime? (my guess is that it doesn't)

Besides, stats that I've previously linked (and you've never challenged) show the overall correlation between increased gun numbers and increased gun crime.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Can you think of a situation where there was one gun present, which would have been improved by there being a second gun present?

Please in answering, discount the instances where a deranged person is determined to slaughter allcomers, because these events are exceedingly rare in Britain.

Britain's gun laws are intended to prevent guns getting into the wrong hands. And to some extent, they do. As proof of that, compare the gun-crime statistics per capita in both countries.

I agree with you....
but wonder why those kind of events are exceedingly rare in Britain.
Don't you have your share of crazies? I know you do.
What do your crazy people do instead??
(seriously)

0 Replies

happycat wrote:

McTag wrote:
Can you think of a situation where there was one gun present, which would have been improved by there being a second gun present?

Please in answering, discount the instances where a deranged person is determined to slaughter allcomers, because these events are exceedingly rare in Britain.

Britain's gun laws are intended to prevent guns getting into the wrong hands. And to some extent, they do. As proof of that, compare the gun-crime statistics per capita in both countries.

I agree with you....
but wonder why those kind of events are exceedingly rare in Britain.
Don't you have your share of crazies? I know you do.
What do your crazy people do instead??
(seriously)

They collect used postage stamps and the numbers of railway locomotives, I think.

There is evidence to suggest that the presence of an arsenal of weapons in a house leads unhinged people to brood about using it.
(Waco, Columbine)
No arsenal, no bodies.
Seems straightforward to me.

0 Replies

I CAN think of a situatio where a second gun would help.

when a man walks up to me and initiates an armed robbery, and instead of handing him my wallet i grip my gun pull it out quickly and shoot him. if he shoots me first oh well at least i didnt go out like a bitch.

0 Replies

Here in OZ,
Strong licencing control on gun ownership for those who do own/need guns (Farmers, sporting shooters) weeds out the crazies. Mandatory club membership for sporting shooters means other members quickly weed out the loonies or those on the edge.
A ban on automatic/high calibre weapons (you dont need a sub machinegun to shoot deer).

Illegal guns are problem but over a period of time this too is being brought under control.

Gun deaths from crimes of passion are waaaaaayyy down.
No high body count massacres since the legislation was enacted.

No guns No bodies

0 Replies

The robbers gun is to get your wallet. Not to commit a murder.

Penalty for robbery, a year in prison, say.

But you say you are willing to kill to avoid looking like a bitch?

Please.

0 Replies

A robber points his gun at me and demands my wallet. I start to pull my gun out to "defend" myself.

Robber sees my gun and is afraid i will shoot him, he shoots me before I can shoot him.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Quote:
There is no death penalty in Britain.

Its not too late.
I suggest that your Parliament remedy that situation.
I 'd demand of each candidate for that office
that he reveal his choice, as to whether he favors
the decent people, or those who prey upon them.

It is a dichotomy.

Here in New York,
we lost the death penalty for quite a few years,
but it was reinstated around 1995.

Quote:
But NRA people in America think it is okay to discharge a firearm
if you think your rights or person or property are being threatened.

Yes.
This point of vu is held by almost everyone,
regardless of membership in the NRA;
( not including the Amish nor Quakers, I suppose ).
Indeed, the mere DISPLAY of a gun by the victim
has proven sufficient to cause the predator to flee the scene
in millions of attempted crimes in America
( estimated by statistician Gary Gleck at about 2, 500, 000 times a year )

In America, the US Dept. of Labor
includes the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
( ofen called " O.S.H.A. " ).
It looks after safe conditions on-the-job for the benefit of American laborers.
Government in America, was not created to serve as O.S.H.A.
for violent criminals, to protect them from the wrath of their victims, on-the-job,
as those predatory criminals rob and/or slaughter the victims, at the predators' discretion.

If the wolves are devouring the sheep,
the remedy is NOT to remove the teeth from the mouths of the SHEEP.

Quote:
If this were to occur here, then the "victim" would be putting himself
in the position of judge, jury, and possibly executioner.

Even if that were accuate,
it is better for the victim to be tried by 12, than carried by 6.

Quote:
This is plainly a nonsense under our law.
And, I would submit, also under yours.

U have fallen into conceptual error,
to wit:
it is the function of the criminal justice system
to decide the facts and circumstances attending a purported crime,
and then to avenge the victim,
if the defendant is found to have committed the alleged crime.

During an act of self-defense from criminals or from predatory animals,
the victim does not seek vengeance,
but rather, he seeks to preserve his property and his well being,
so that he will survive the attack.

In America, we never granted government the authority
to prevent the citizens from defending themselves,
and we explicity denied government authority to interfere
with our possession of guns.
As your philosopher John Locke has pointed out,
government has only that authority which its creators ( the citizens ) have granted to it.

Beyond the extent of that grant,
government can only rule by USURPATION of ultra vires acts,
with the same authority as a schoolyard bully.

David

0 Replies

first off death isnt scary so i dont care.

second, IF he gets caught he gets punsihed.

i could hand him my wallet with my hard earned money, but no thanks.
If you pull a gun on me your are ready to kill me, doesnt matter if you want to or not.

i doubt he could react faster than me, shooting, oddly enough is one of the things in life i excel at without even trying, and my reflexes are pretty much as fast as possible without dedicating my life to training. my cousin in the marines gets pissed as hell when i utshoot him and he trains constantly.

and third, if he robs me, how the **** am i gonna pay rent? i dont have people to help me out, im on my own. id seriously risk my life to keep my money, i know all to well what life is like without it.

maybe you rich people can afford to give away your money.

0 Replies

i dont understand how people can agree with gun banning.

dc banned guns huh? please explain why it has the highest murder rate?

or maybe i am mistakenly using old information.

0 Replies

wait maybe they dont use guns, that just struck me.

bleh, i need some stats.

0 Replies

One thing GB has in common with the USA is that more people are robbed with fountain pens than with guns.

0 Replies

with so many guns in the hands of so many law abiding people, I'm surprised there is any crime at all in the US.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

with so many guns in the hands of so many law abiding people,
I'm surprised there is any crime at all in the US.

Crime is concentrated predominantly
in states that by law, have disarmed the future victims;
i.e., government is in bed with the violent criminals.

In Vermont there have never been any gun laws
and it has always had the safest, lowest rate of violent crime.

A few years ago,
Alaska repealled all of its gun laws,
for the same reason.

David

0 Replies

SHUD ENGLAND RESTORE GUN FREEDOM ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know